By sowing doubt on the state of readiness of the executive, the resigning minister Agnès Buzyn opened Pandora's box. Under the guise of “off”, even if it is always easy to judge after the fact, languages are loosening in the mysteries of power to regret a lack of anticipation, despite the precautionary principle. Factual feedback in four questions.
Late for a war?
Did the executive react on a day-to-day basis, losing time in front of the Covid-19, while the members of the scientific council which supports the president agree that the number of cases doubles "every four or five days " ? At the Elysée and Matignon, the awareness of the gravity of the crisis dates from the end of January. "At this point, we understand that we must prepare for something substantial," says an adviser.
In the meetings at Matignon, Buzyn then made this admission, such as to encourage us to foresee the worst: “We must accept to say that we don't know everything. However, she resigned on February 16 and, ten days later, the OL-Juventus match was maintained in Lyon under the outcry, on "president's arbitration", regrets a minister. On February 27, after the first French death, Emmanuel Macron made his first outing, at the Pitié-Salpêtrière. “That morning, Professor Eric Caumes told him straight in the eyes that we were going straight towards an Italian scenario and that the virus is spreading faster than we imagine. It was three weeks ago… and we let it come, ”laments a macronie strategist.
The first measures gradually fell: meetings of more than 5,000 people (February 28) ended, then more than 1,000 (March 8). On March 11, a loyal president said: "He does not want a country stopped, as in Italy. Nor does the government want "general quarantine". But the next day, March 12, before the president's first speech, the scientific council warned of the risk that "50%" of the French would be affected with "hundreds of thousands of deaths", for lack of strong measures.
He suggests closing schools, telecommuting, ending mass gatherings, but warns that this will not be enough and that quarantine in China has been effective. Confinement in France came into force five days later. “We manage permanent emergency. Result, the doubt is permanent! Thunders a minister, for whom the evolving crisis forces him to adapt step by step. A defense that the experts are blasting up: “Since January 3, the Chinese have been sharing their experience. They have superbly ignored their decisions and mocked those of Italy. "
A “in between” strategy?
In a note released at the beginning of March, professor of criminology Alain Bauer notes: "States hesitate between treating (Covid-19) like a big flu", like Great Britain in the hope, disputed, of immunizing its population , and "unprecedented collective containment and security systems", like China.
In France, confinement is "not generalized", assures the government. "It's war ... but not too much!" "Mocks a Walker. The limits of "and at the same time"? The president, who claimed the posture of Jupiter at the start of his mandate, this time favored "consensus" so as not to add to the health crisis a political crisis. At the risk of being accused of not deciding, while the political class was fractured and its government, itself split. Example: on the municipal elections, François Bayrou, followed by several ministers, was for a postponement; and Edouard Philippe for maintenance.
A stormy ministerial adviser, also targeting the scientific council: “Everyone will have to look at themselves in front of the ice. Maintaining the first round was crazy! In its opinion of March 12, the scientific council noted that there was no danger in going to vote, and left its role by warning the executive: to postpone was to run the risk be suspected of a "political calculation", while LREM was in an unfavorable position.
Political Newsletter
Every day, political news seen by Le ParisienI'm registering
Your email address is collected by Le Parisien to allow you to receive our news and commercial offers. Find out more
The risk of this “in-between” strategy: contradictory injunctions. Until the decision to close the places of leisure, last Saturday, "we repeated to the French that life had to go on," notes a figure of macronie, still taken aback by the trip to the theater by the Macron couple on 6 March.
Fear of the economic "braking blow"?
A senior official in power confides, on condition of anonymity: "We must not delude ourselves, the priority of departure was not 100% health, but economic. Everything had to be done to reassure the economic and financial circles ”. On this ground, awareness was very rapid in the face of the danger that the economy would collapse.
As of March 3, a minister questioned by our newspaper was alarmed by the “monstrous” impact on business failures. In Matignon, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Benoît Ribadeau-Dumas, repeated that the epidemic had to be "curbed", but not "blocked" the country. And Bruno Le Maire, in Bercy, sounded the alarm very early.
Scientists in the fog?
This Wednesday on RTL, the president of the scientific council Jean-François Delfraissy made this commendable confession, "in a personal capacity": "I admit not having taken the measure of the plague at the end of January". "We reasoned in percentage, rather than in number," laments an expert, who does the calculation: 2% mortality is little on paper, but much more alarming if a large part of the population is impacted.
What about the precautionary principle? In 2009, faced with the threat of the H1N1 virus, the Minister of Health Roselyne Bachelot had ordered 94 million vaccines under the jibes. “The time has come to rehabilitate it for preparing the country for a pandemic. Like Xavier Bertrand who, out of any crisis, had ordered millions of masks just in case, ”salutes criminologist Alain Bauer. "To say that we have underestimated the risk is a bit easy after the fact," concludes an executive adviser. The only thing I can say is that everyone knew from the start that we were dealing with an emerging virus that could mutate. "